[hokum]

I presume that in an ambiguous dispute about tricks taken/revokes, you rule in favour of the pair whose cards are still on the table, in sequence (65D, 66D).
But what if the number of tricks was agreed, a pair folded their cards away, and then the director is called to resolve a dispute about a revoke?

Thanks

[pran]

hokum, on 2014-September-03, 02:23, said:

I presume that in an ambiguous dispute about tricks taken/revokes, you rule in favour of the pair whose cards are still on the table, in sequence (65D, 66D).
But what if the number of tricks was agreed, a pair folded their cards away, and then the director is called to resolve a dispute about a revoke?

Thanks

If the situation is ambiguous you rule against the side that later objects to a result already agreed upon.

[mycroft]

But you try to resolve whether the revoke happened first, even replaying it if you can, before it's "ambiguous"...

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2014-September-03, 11:40, said:

But you try to resolve whether the revoke happened first, even replaying it if you can, before it's "ambiguous"...

If you're achieved that, it wouldn't be ambiguous and we wouldn't be discussing it.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2014-September-03, 11:40, said:

But you try to resolve whether the revoke happened first, even replaying it if you can, before it's "ambiguous"...

barmar, on 2014-September-03, 12:45, said:

If you're achieved that, it wouldn't be ambiguous and we wouldn't be discussing it.

Precisely!

But there is also a limit on how much time I am willing (as TD) to spend investigating such "late" questionable claims after a result has been agreed upon.

[hokum]

Thanks, it would definitely be important to try to establish the play before ruling (especially in a congress setting).

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2014-September-03, 12:45, said:

If you've achieved that, it wouldn't be ambiguous and we wouldn't be discussing it.

Well, yes, but this is in the context of "training for the TD exam". Everybody has met at least one TD whose response to anything unusual is "A+/A-" rather than investigating; so I was just making it clear that "just because the cards were folded up doesn't make it ambiguous. Only after a reasonable attempt to determine what happened has failed is it ambiguous."